An intact slave's room found in Pompeii's ruins(pompeiisites.org)
pompeiisites.org
An intact slave's room found in Pompeii's ruins
http://pompeiisites.org/en/comunicati/the-room-of-the-slaves-the-latest-discovery-at-civita-giuliana/
214 comments
Roman plasterwork was applied in layers, and in first layer (which is quite rough) a diamond pattern is scratched. This is to increase the adhesion of the next layer (also known as the key). This is also true of lime plasterwork done through the ages.
As far as I can see only the first layer with the diamond pattern is visible one the left wall. The other layers may have not survived. Why would you bother to create a diamond pattern if you're not going to put more layers on?
In fact, the wall at the far end does show more layers, and also some decoration right in the the middle.
As far as I can see only the first layer with the diamond pattern is visible one the left wall. The other layers may have not survived. Why would you bother to create a diamond pattern if you're not going to put more layers on?
In fact, the wall at the far end does show more layers, and also some decoration right in the the middle.
> Roman plasterwork was applied in layers, and in first layer (which is quite rough) a diamond pattern is scratched.
I don't think that's correct. I'm pretty sure the pictures actually depict opus reticulatum, which is a style of brick-lined cement work.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_reticulatum
I'd be happy to be proven wrong though.
I don't think that's correct. I'm pretty sure the pictures actually depict opus reticulatum, which is a style of brick-lined cement work.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_reticulatum
I'd be happy to be proven wrong though.
Probably for the same reason you sometimes see unfinished drywall in basements and attics.
Because different stages could have been handled by different teams or contractors.
That would have been an absolute necessity at the time. Artificial lighting was obscenely expensive in antiquity[1].
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/10567/the-cost-of-light-throu...
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/10567/the-cost-of-light-throu...
I wonder how they came up with that 1750 BC figure of 400 hours of work for one hour of light. Any ideas? It sounds ridiculously high, so I assume I'm missing something. What are they even talking about? Olive oil or tallow lamps? Firewood? Something else?
"One hour of light (referred to as the quantity of light shed by a 100 watt bulb in one hour) cost 3200 times as much in 1800 in England than it does today"
Oil lamps are not so bright, and you would need lots of them to reach the same brightness as a 100 watt bulb.
In other words, they still had light, but not so much and not so often.
Oil lamps are not so bright, and you would need lots of them to reach the same brightness as a 100 watt bulb.
In other words, they still had light, but not so much and not so often.
You can just barely make it out in the corner there:
CAROLVS MVNGER ARCHITECTVS
CAROLVS MVNGER ARCHITECTVS
I really don’t understand this reference
Probably cheaper than providing them with candles or oil lamps.
Roman salves in some case could become full citizens. Slavery was different for different cultures treatment varied greatly from situation to situation. The closer the slave was to the rich the better they were treated in general
[deleted]
[deleted]
16sqm for 3 people. Reminds that in USSR the minimum was 6/person.
Minimum for slaves in USSR was way less, somewhere near a 1 sqm per person.
> "First we lived in 20-metre tents on two-level continuous bunks in two rows. ... Two hundred people slept on the bunks. It worked out at 40 centimeters to a person. ..."
https://gulag.online/places/barak-veznu-ketlar?locale=en
> "First we lived in 20-metre tents on two-level continuous bunks in two rows. ... Two hundred people slept on the bunks. It worked out at 40 centimeters to a person. ..."
https://gulag.online/places/barak-veznu-ketlar?locale=en
Slaves and slavery were extremely different in Pompeii and Herculaneum then what we usually think of as chattel slavery as the default and only slavery that ever existed. An interviewee either doesn’t understand this or made very sweeping claims.
> “This is a window into the precarious reality of people who seldom appear in historical sources that were written almost exclusively by men belonging to the elite, and who as a result risk remaining invisible in the great historical accounts,” -
Many slaves were captured and famous intellectuals (Aesop is a famous example) or educated and used as tutors, they were not as modernists assume to be universally ill treated and abused. Slaves in Herculaneum were able to become free and it was a very racially diverse place where being a former slave of different racial background did not mean you were unable to have social mobility, many of the wealthy people of Herculaneum were indeed former slaves. Slavery was not a permanent state of being and the very elite the quoted author complains about often did write about slaves at least in name; the former slaves would take the last name of the old master and records were excellent.
Fate of a Roman slave was decidedly different depending on what the slave did.
House and urban slaves weren't much worse off than a regular citizen, having a good chance of manumission (release), after which they became freedmen - still not full citizens, but their children would be, and some freedmen became very rich.
Given that those slaves are the ones that we know the most about (from both archeology and written sources), it skews our perception of Roman slavery to being more benign than it actually was.
Rural slaves which worked in agriculture were worked very hard and they were much more numerous than house slaves. Not an enviable fate, though one must admit that ancient agriculture was a backbreaking work regardless of personal status.
Slaves sent to mines were basically sentenced to death. Few of them would last more than five years. Ancient Rome had very extensive mining operations and mines "ate" men by the thousands. These were mostly enslaved men, because they were cheaper and could not say "no". Mining safety back then was basically zero.
House and urban slaves weren't much worse off than a regular citizen, having a good chance of manumission (release), after which they became freedmen - still not full citizens, but their children would be, and some freedmen became very rich.
Given that those slaves are the ones that we know the most about (from both archeology and written sources), it skews our perception of Roman slavery to being more benign than it actually was.
Rural slaves which worked in agriculture were worked very hard and they were much more numerous than house slaves. Not an enviable fate, though one must admit that ancient agriculture was a backbreaking work regardless of personal status.
Slaves sent to mines were basically sentenced to death. Few of them would last more than five years. Ancient Rome had very extensive mining operations and mines "ate" men by the thousands. These were mostly enslaved men, because they were cheaper and could not say "no". Mining safety back then was basically zero.
I've always found the idea that 'slavery isn't so bad' to be easy for armchair anthropologists to think. I'm reminded of the Pompei skeleton of a boy found in a stable behind the skeleton of a mule, with a mule hoofprint in his skull. "Hey you slaveboy! The volcano is making the mule upset! Go in there and calm him down!" The slave didn't end up any better off than the mule, both abandoned to die/already dead when the citizens fled.
People even today underestimate the badness of living in the lowest income quintile of almost any society. It is not just about cashflow, but about (lack of) respect and dignity.
So nothing's changed? :-/
It amazes me, when reading stuff from ancient Rome (currently I'm reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, which was basically his diary), how similar a lot of society, day-to-day worries and the like, are to ours today. However, I think the normal person's worldview nowadays is much more similar to that of the most elite in those societies than the plebians, mostly because general education has improved so drastically.
I agree, when you study the classics like Greek philosophy, you se the same problems we have today, because socially we have not evolved even though materially there has been significant advances.
For the starving, exploited third world workers in the state of illegal immigrants with no rights - probably not so much.
Or for the fate of one of the real slaves.
What is different today, is that slavery is mostly viewed as a bad thing. That is a accomplishment, but it doesn't mean we got rid of the misery.
Or for the fate of one of the real slaves.
What is different today, is that slavery is mostly viewed as a bad thing. That is a accomplishment, but it doesn't mean we got rid of the misery.
That's ridiculous. The standard of living has increased astronomically over the past few hundred years in the developed world. People in the lower quintile can afford refrigeration, cheap food, unlimited free entertainment, heating and air conditioning, laundry, plumbing, etc etc.
This is not to take away from the stress and precarity of their situation, but materially, almost everyone in the US is better off than almost everyone in ancient rome.
This is not to take away from the stress and precarity of their situation, but materially, almost everyone in the US is better off than almost everyone in ancient rome.
I don't think they were comparing today's standard of living in the US to that in Rome, just saying that people misrepresent poverty, and that poverty is crushing for a human being.
I do think the fact that you decided to counter and declare that the US meets the incredibly low bar of "better living conditions than ancient Rome" is an interesting point to reflect on, and probably relates to the previous poster's point.
I do think the fact that you decided to counter and declare that the US meets the incredibly low bar of "better living conditions than ancient Rome" is an interesting point to reflect on, and probably relates to the previous poster's point.
[deleted]
To rule in hell or to serve in heaven.
Horses kill people today who aren’t slaves. In fact, kill more people than sharks.
...and then people leave their dead bodies on the floor in the mule pen, while packing their valuables and taking the last boat? Not sure what horses have to do with lack of respect for slaves.
> Slaves sent to mines were basically sentenced to death.
It's less bad now, but being a miner is not much better nowadays, even more so since most of the mines are in poor countries with little care for the workers and rich countries would prefer not to think too hard where the iron for their eco-conscious steel bottle is coming from.
It's less bad now, but being a miner is not much better nowadays, even more so since most of the mines are in poor countries with little care for the workers and rich countries would prefer not to think too hard where the iron for their eco-conscious steel bottle is coming from.
This is region specific. Miners in Australia are all managed by unions and are some of the best paid professionals in the Country. (1)
And with that said due to the level of influence from the unions, also have great safety ratings compared to other regions. Though admitedly still quite dangerous, but less so than cinsteuction, agriculture and warehouse work (3).
(1) https://www.minerals.org.au/news/australian-mining-provides-...
(2) https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/industry_business/minin...
(3) https://www.finder.com.au/most-dangerous-jobs-australia
And with that said due to the level of influence from the unions, also have great safety ratings compared to other regions. Though admitedly still quite dangerous, but less so than cinsteuction, agriculture and warehouse work (3).
(1) https://www.minerals.org.au/news/australian-mining-provides-...
(2) https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/industry_business/minin...
(3) https://www.finder.com.au/most-dangerous-jobs-australia
That's nice to hear, and to correct my previous comment, Australia is the biggest producer of iron:
> In 2019, the country was the 2nd largest world producer of gold;[1] 8th largest world producer of silver;[2] 6th largest world producer of copper;[3] the world's largest producer of iron ore;[4] the world's largest producer of bauxite;[5] the 2nd largest world producer of manganese;[6] 2nd largest world producer of lead;[7] 3rd largest world producer of zinc;[8] 3rd largest world producer of cobalt;[9] 3rd largest producer of uranium;[10] 6th largest producer of nickel;[11] 8th largest world producer of tin;[12] 14th largest world producer of phosphate;[13] 15th largest world producer of sulfur;[14] in addition to being the 5th largest world producer of salt.[15]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Australia
> In 2019, the country was the 2nd largest world producer of gold;[1] 8th largest world producer of silver;[2] 6th largest world producer of copper;[3] the world's largest producer of iron ore;[4] the world's largest producer of bauxite;[5] the 2nd largest world producer of manganese;[6] 2nd largest world producer of lead;[7] 3rd largest world producer of zinc;[8] 3rd largest world producer of cobalt;[9] 3rd largest producer of uranium;[10] 6th largest producer of nickel;[11] 8th largest world producer of tin;[12] 14th largest world producer of phosphate;[13] 15th largest world producer of sulfur;[14] in addition to being the 5th largest world producer of salt.[15]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Australia
I grew up in a mining city (Ostrava, black coal). Now the mines are closed, but when I was a kid, they were in full operation.
Disasters happened infrequently, but when they did, they were ugly. A spark at a wrong time in a wrong place, and sixty fathers would never come back home again.
Mining is freaking dangerous. The forces of nature involved are enormous, and human is but a small ant facing them.
Disasters happened infrequently, but when they did, they were ugly. A spark at a wrong time in a wrong place, and sixty fathers would never come back home again.
Mining is freaking dangerous. The forces of nature involved are enormous, and human is but a small ant facing them.
A bit off-topic, but how did the city cope with the mine closure and loss of so many jobs?
Lots of drinking and a significant loss of younger population that went to study elsewhere and never returned. A sad sight.
The environment is much better, though. The air is mostly clean, while it smelled like burnt tires in my childhood.
The environment is much better, though. The air is mostly clean, while it smelled like burnt tires in my childhood.
Sorry to hear that! Haven’t made it to Ostrava yet, but traveled a fair bit around Czechia - amazing country and people.
The worst phase was probably around 1998. It is slowly getting better. We have some interesting architectural projects, for example.
Also, neighboring Poland has undergone an economic boom in the last 30 years, and the network of connections between the region around Ostrava and Poland is becoming very helpful to the local economy.
Also, neighboring Poland has undergone an economic boom in the last 30 years, and the network of connections between the region around Ostrava and Poland is becoming very helpful to the local economy.
Not just dangerous for the miners too. Aberfan had a major effect on the UK. A slag heap near the village collapsed, burying a school and killing 144, almost all of them schoolchildren
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster
The Crown did for Aberfan what Watchmen did for Tulsa.
Haven't seen either, I assume the Crown covered the emotional effect on the Queen, no idea what Watchmen is - it's the film with the glowing man with a dong isn't it?
To me, Tulsa is either 24 hours away, or the place Chandler went to for Christmas in Friends.
To me, Tulsa is either 24 hours away, or the place Chandler went to for Christmas in Friends.
Is the HBO series with the glowing man.
It is not about the 1921 massacre of 300 blacks in Tulsa, but that serves as the backstory.
Both shows are first rate TV.
It is not about the 1921 massacre of 300 blacks in Tulsa, but that serves as the backstory.
Both shows are first rate TV.
"Hey, Coal Miner" is a poignant glimpse into life in the mines. The whole song is great but this verse in particular always gets to me:
"Into the truck, Then into the bath, Ground to dust And then in a flash, Turns into fire That turns into ash, Hey, coal miner."
https://youtu.be/0LQZWvEMWIA?t=01m07s
"Into the truck, Then into the bath, Ground to dust And then in a flash, Turns into fire That turns into ash, Hey, coal miner."
https://youtu.be/0LQZWvEMWIA?t=01m07s
It’s beside the point, but historically a lot of the iron ore used in US steel manufacturing has come from northern Minnesota.
My grandfather was a coal miner back in the 50s in rural Oklahoma. He died of black lung in his early 50s. I’m hoping today it’s not nearly as dangerous.
Still, it's probably safer than farming
Possibly true now, but not in Roman times- cave-ins are more dangerous than angry draft animals.
Also, suffocation risk. We are much better at detecting O2 levels, presence of unwanted gases such as CO, and supplying O2 artificially. Ancient Romans lacked both the knowledge and the technology, and most dangerous gases are actually invisible.
>being a miner is not much better nowadays
it's allright there are rough aspects but in the end it's worth it, especially since bitcoin is doing well
it's allright there are rough aspects but in the end it's worth it, especially since bitcoin is doing well
> Mining safety back then was basically zero.
I don't believe that. People who work in any activity will always learn what's dangerous and take precautions to avoid dying. 2,000 years is not as long a time length as we sometimes think, people then were pretty much exactly like us, except for their culture. And I don't think there's any culture where people don't tend to try to not die.
I don't believe that. People who work in any activity will always learn what's dangerous and take precautions to avoid dying. 2,000 years is not as long a time length as we sometimes think, people then were pretty much exactly like us, except for their culture. And I don't think there's any culture where people don't tend to try to not die.
Surely the miners tried to not die, but, being enslaved, they were under the command of people who didn't care if they died or not. Many kinds of mining have historically had very high fatality rates; even 300 years ago the mita to Potosi was basically a death sentence.
Huh? So, if the mine was unstable the slaves would do what exactly? Go work at another mine?
They would go on a Hunger Strike. If not killed first.
Roman culture considered pity and sympathy to be weaknesses and obedience to be a virtue. Hunger strikes would not have been very effective, and we don't have any evidence of them having been used in Classical times.
WW2 had plenty of examples of essentially slave labour with high levels of mortality.
And then there were the superstar slaves, such as champion gladiators and charioteers. They were idolized by the masses and they likely lived more comfortable lives than the majority of the capite censi and maybe some of the poorer knights.
> These were mostly enslaved men, because they were cheaper and could not say "no"
Huh, that's new to me. Did enslaved women have some kind of legal right to opt out of the mines, or was it just that other uses were found for them?
> These were mostly enslaved men, because they were cheaper and could not say "no"
Huh, that's new to me. Did enslaved women have some kind of legal right to opt out of the mines, or was it just that other uses were found for them?
“Superstar” doesn’t outweigh “slave”. Think about what being a gladiator meant: you were regularly put into situations where even a win risked disfigurement, serious illness or death (imagine being a MMA fighter without antibiotics), and a long career was a decade. Every fight was fought with the knowledge that your best case scenario was to hurt or kill someone just like you badly enough that you’d have a break before being forced to do the same thing next time, when you perhaps would be on the other end of that outcome.
In a fairly graphic comparison, Seneca recorded the suicide of a German slave who was being trained as a gladiator for animal fights. He took advantage of the only freedom he was given to choke himself to death on a xylospongium, one the communal sponges the Romans used instead of toilet paper. Think about how you’d get into a state of mind where that seemed like the best option.
In a fairly graphic comparison, Seneca recorded the suicide of a German slave who was being trained as a gladiator for animal fights. He took advantage of the only freedom he was given to choke himself to death on a xylospongium, one the communal sponges the Romans used instead of toilet paper. Think about how you’d get into a state of mind where that seemed like the best option.
> “Superstar” doesn’t outweigh “slave”.
It did if they earned the rudis.
Also bear in mind at the time a military enlistment was a 25 year commitment. And a legionary didn’t really have more rights than a slave practically speaking. Both were in the manus of their legal superior.
It did if they earned the rudis.
Also bear in mind at the time a military enlistment was a 25 year commitment. And a legionary didn’t really have more rights than a slave practically speaking. Both were in the manus of their legal superior.
Hormones mean women are less strong and thus less able to do the job. You get more work out of males.
Plus women were more suited for sex, these were not enlightened times so rape of slave women was not frowned on.
Plus women were more suited for sex, these were not enlightened times so rape of slave women was not frowned on.
I've heard this quite a few times now and I'm not sure where the idea comes from that slavery in the Roman Republic and Empire were somehow humane but that wasn't the case at all.
Roman slaves were property and could be treated as such, including sexual exploitation (eg made to be prostitutes) and being summarily executed.
And yes, slaves could be freed but that was also true in the American slave era. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's accessible, particularly by the slave themselves. Also, freedmen in Rome had less rights than citizens.
The history of Rome is a fascinating one but it's hard to look at through the eyes of modern morality. I think this generally applies to the Ancient World: if somehow we could be transported back to that time I'm sure we'd find it quite alien.
My favourite example of this is the origin of the word "decimate" [1]. If, say, a military unit rebelled against Rome, groups of 10 would have to decide which one of the 10 would die and to kill them.
Slavery has always been brutal.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment)
Roman slaves were property and could be treated as such, including sexual exploitation (eg made to be prostitutes) and being summarily executed.
And yes, slaves could be freed but that was also true in the American slave era. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's accessible, particularly by the slave themselves. Also, freedmen in Rome had less rights than citizens.
The history of Rome is a fascinating one but it's hard to look at through the eyes of modern morality. I think this generally applies to the Ancient World: if somehow we could be transported back to that time I'm sure we'd find it quite alien.
My favourite example of this is the origin of the word "decimate" [1]. If, say, a military unit rebelled against Rome, groups of 10 would have to decide which one of the 10 would die and to kill them.
Slavery has always been brutal.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment)
I think there’s a strong linkage in America’s history of both slavery and explicitly modeling our image as continuing some kind of tradition from Rome & Ancient Greece. Slavery can’t be so bad if the governments we view as inspiration practiced it, just as many white Americans will downplay the horrors of the American system rather than fully acknowledge what their ancestors profited from.
> And yes, slaves could be freed but that was also true in the American slave era. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's accessible, particularly by the slave themselves. Also, freedmen in Rome had less rights than citizens.
In the US slaves were used as collateral for loans. In a way slaves weren't owned by plantation owners, they were owned by the banks. That if anything explains some of the pernicious aspects of US slavery. Also likely the US banking system. And the mistreatment of blacks after the civil war.
In the US slaves were used as collateral for loans. In a way slaves weren't owned by plantation owners, they were owned by the banks. That if anything explains some of the pernicious aspects of US slavery. Also likely the US banking system. And the mistreatment of blacks after the civil war.
Decimation was rarely used IIRC.
But as far as I can tell, the Romans were similar in a lot of ways to the Spartans. Probably everyone was in the region, the Spartans were just a bit more extreme, and had the best propaganda.
But look at what the Romans had - pater familias (the father of a household could legally murder a weak infant, or technically anyone under them including any adult male sons), legends like Troy and Horatius Cocles, plantation slavery to keep the city fed, and a violent and hierarchical society run almost entirely by veteran officers from noble families - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_honorum
But as far as I can tell, the Romans were similar in a lot of ways to the Spartans. Probably everyone was in the region, the Spartans were just a bit more extreme, and had the best propaganda.
But look at what the Romans had - pater familias (the father of a household could legally murder a weak infant, or technically anyone under them including any adult male sons), legends like Troy and Horatius Cocles, plantation slavery to keep the city fed, and a violent and hierarchical society run almost entirely by veteran officers from noble families - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_honorum
Probably most societies through history has had the family as its "smallest unit".
Just like in modern USA, it's nobody's business if I cut off one of my fingers, it would not be of concern for such a society if a family kills one of their members.
If you kill or steal from another family, legal systems usually step in.
I always keep i mind that through almost all history, compared to our modern life, people were incredibly poor, living near famine, disease, and death. In that light what seems barbaric is often just practical.
Just like in modern USA, it's nobody's business if I cut off one of my fingers, it would not be of concern for such a society if a family kills one of their members.
If you kill or steal from another family, legal systems usually step in.
I always keep i mind that through almost all history, compared to our modern life, people were incredibly poor, living near famine, disease, and death. In that light what seems barbaric is often just practical.
You claim most slaves in Roman times were not freed, do you know the history or are you just assuming with no evidence that's the case?
> You claim most slaves in Roman times were not freed, do you know the history or are you just assuming with no evidence that's the case?
Honestly, I think you're the one who needs to be providing the evidence, especially if you're claiming anything close to the opposite of that (i.e. that most slaves in Roman times were freed).
Honestly, I think you're the one who needs to be providing the evidence, especially if you're claiming anything close to the opposite of that (i.e. that most slaves in Roman times were freed).
Epictetus, freedman roman Stoic philosopher seems as a whole have an attitude of like "what of it, it's not like you're free from obligations even as senator or the caesar". As a slave, you are free from all concerns and worries beyond fulfilling your duties.
Discourses 4.1 is perhaps the most direct example of this.
Discourses 4.1 is perhaps the most direct example of this.
After reading Discourses 4.1 I would like to summarize it as a defense of the institution of slavery that goes something like “Slavery is good because slaves themselves don’t know what it means to be free and freedom is actually a burden in the wrong mindset so it shouldn’t be for everyone.” (Ignoring that slavery, the deprivation of personhood, is an inhumane burden somehow comparable to “oh no I’m free and now I have to answer to Caesar”) Yes, it’s an odd opinion from a former slave who was maimed by a former master.
Unfortunately this argument is sustained all through history and today we have people going something like “actually, working multiple minimum wage jobs and struggling to pay rent is good”.
Unfortunately this argument is sustained all through history and today we have people going something like “actually, working multiple minimum wage jobs and struggling to pay rent is good”.
I'm not really passing judgement on Epictetus, merely relaying his position, as someone with a far more personal understanding of roman slavery than anyone discussing it 2000 post fact. Difficult to explain to the man how he ought to feel about events in his life we have only a sketch of an idea about.
Within the framework of Stoicism, where worrying is one of the greatest evils, his argument makes every sense.
Within the framework of Stoicism, where worrying is one of the greatest evils, his argument makes every sense.
I don't think Epictetus was actually defending the institution of slavery. Rather, stoic philosophy is full of these "hacks" for handling unpleasant things in your life. Many of them seem quite morbid and bizarre to the untrained mind (such as actively thinking about the death and absence of a loved one).
I don't know about "hacks", rather observations.
If most people didn't have to work to survive, they wouldn't know what to do with the time. An observation about slavery is that you've traded in the burden of responsibility that liberty introduces for the comfort of not having to worry about what to do with yourself
It's easier to just go do what you're told than it is to determine what must be done. Most people actually prefer that way of living. Left to themselves, they'd either become paralyzed with indecision, or they'd piss their lives away indulging their appetites and possibly commit suicide.
If most people didn't have to work to survive, they wouldn't know what to do with the time. An observation about slavery is that you've traded in the burden of responsibility that liberty introduces for the comfort of not having to worry about what to do with yourself
It's easier to just go do what you're told than it is to determine what must be done. Most people actually prefer that way of living. Left to themselves, they'd either become paralyzed with indecision, or they'd piss their lives away indulging their appetites and possibly commit suicide.
I prefer to start having the emperor's problems. You can keep the slave's problems if you want.
> I don't know about "hacks", rather observations.
They are definitely hacks: the Enchiridion lists a few of them. Stoicism is anything if not a practical philosophy.
> An observation about slavery is that you've traded in the burden of responsibility that liberty introduces for the comfort of not having to worry about what to do with yourself
I interpreted it as a hedonic treadmill of responsibility; okay, you're not a slave anymore but a citizen so now you have the responsibilities of a citizen to worry about. You're no longer a citizen but a senator, so now you have senatorial responsibilities. You're no longer a senator but the emperor, so now you have to deal with all the problems an emperor needs to deal with it (as Marcus Aurelius can attest to).
Moving up in the world just means that you replace one set of problems with another set of problems. Slave or emperor, it makes no difference if the problems are beyond your control.
They are definitely hacks: the Enchiridion lists a few of them. Stoicism is anything if not a practical philosophy.
> An observation about slavery is that you've traded in the burden of responsibility that liberty introduces for the comfort of not having to worry about what to do with yourself
I interpreted it as a hedonic treadmill of responsibility; okay, you're not a slave anymore but a citizen so now you have the responsibilities of a citizen to worry about. You're no longer a citizen but a senator, so now you have senatorial responsibilities. You're no longer a senator but the emperor, so now you have to deal with all the problems an emperor needs to deal with it (as Marcus Aurelius can attest to).
Moving up in the world just means that you replace one set of problems with another set of problems. Slave or emperor, it makes no difference if the problems are beyond your control.
> ”Unfortunately this argument is sustained all through history and today we have people going something like “actually, working multiple minimum wage jobs and struggling to pay rent is good”.”
It’s much worse than that — today we have people justifying why they work for others as opposed to being entrepreneurs. “It’s not for everyone. It’s too much work. It’s all about luck. You have to be rich already. etc…”
It’s much worse than that — today we have people justifying why they work for others as opposed to being entrepreneurs. “It’s not for everyone. It’s too much work. It’s all about luck. You have to be rich already. etc…”
It’s all about luck and needing to be already wealthy is true in America at least. Healthcare costs will annihilate you otherwise…
"It’s all about luck. You have to be rich already. etc…”
Yep, it is true. It is not for everyone, but not for a lack of want.
Yep, it is true. It is not for everyone, but not for a lack of want.
If thats all a person can do would you rather them sit on a couch and live off of/depend on the state? No it's not a super fun existence and that's what my life was like right after high school in the early college years.
The real problem comes in when someone in that situation gives up and does nothing.
The real problem comes in when someone in that situation gives up and does nothing.
Ah Stoics, they’re the best at turning being a resigned quitter into dignified philosophy.
I think that's a mis-characterization of stoicism. That sounds more like Epicureanism (quit stressful things and live a simple life) or cynicism (quit everything and live like a stray dog so that you don't have to worry about losing anything).
Stoicism because popular with Roman elites specifically because it didn't ask the adherents to quit anything, but simply to adapt themselves to whatever adversity they might face[1].
[1] https://www.exurbe.com/stoicisms-appeal-to-the-rich-and-powe...
Stoicism because popular with Roman elites specifically because it didn't ask the adherents to quit anything, but simply to adapt themselves to whatever adversity they might face[1].
[1] https://www.exurbe.com/stoicisms-appeal-to-the-rich-and-powe...
I think there are different flavors of Stoicism chiefly differentiated by the social status of the person practicing it. The wealthy and the powerful don’t have to deal with systemic oppression, only their own emotions and consequences of playing the game of realpolitik. In that context Stoicism has a lot to offer. For everyone else though - well sometimes raw, “unmanaged” anger for example is a useful emotion. A “stoic revolutionary” is an oxymoron.
Rage unfailingly makes you a pawn in someone else's game. You should always be wary of anyone telling you that you need to be angry.
The Stoics inherited the Cynics attitude that death isn't an evil. If worse comes to worst, you can always just fall on your sword. They used to say that the door is always open. Marcus Cato weaponized this fact to rob Julius Caesar of complete victory: Caesar couldn't demand his submission if he fell on his sword first. They found him and patched him up. But he ripped out the stitches and disemboweled himself with his bare hands.
The Stoics inherited the Cynics attitude that death isn't an evil. If worse comes to worst, you can always just fall on your sword. They used to say that the door is always open. Marcus Cato weaponized this fact to rob Julius Caesar of complete victory: Caesar couldn't demand his submission if he fell on his sword first. They found him and patched him up. But he ripped out the stitches and disemboweled himself with his bare hands.
[deleted]
I wouldn't be so harsh; it's better to have some way of handling things life throws at you, especially things you have little to no control over, than none at all.
I would rather say an ability to be "well-adjusted".
By definition slaves are ill treated because slavery in itself is terrible. To be clear here, even if your master was individually kind you existed in a system where you had no rights, if you were a witness to a crime you would have to be tortured during your testimony to prove it's true, where you were not fully protected from the law by assaults from any free person, and where you could be sold at any point. It was considered perfectly acceptable for a "kind" master to rape and beat you at any time. Slavery is always a horrendous thing.
Roman slaves, including in Herculaneum, were chattel; they could be bought and sold, and their children were born into slavery. Their owners could break up their marriages with impunity simply by selling them or their spouse to a different household.
Aisopos was also a chattel slave, but he lived 600 years earlier, in a very different culture from that of Herculaneum; consider the difference between your own circumstances and the circumstances of domestic servants 600 years ago in Russia.
Herculaneum did not have very much social mobility; it was a society with much more persistent stratification than our own. Half of Herculaneum's citizens (the most privileged 20%) were freedmen, but most of the wealthy citizens were the great-grandchildren of wealthy citizens, and the great majority of people born enslaved died in slavery. Freedmen and often even their children were ineligible for most political offices. Throughout Italy, 80% of decurions had no slave ancestry at all, any number of generations back. (I'm not sure what the number was in Herculaneum.)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436383
To liberals, enslaving someone is itself ill treatment and abuse, because we consider freedom to be the birthright of every human being, and its denial to amount to ill treatment. So we consider the idea of slavery without ill treatment and abuse to be a contradiction in terms. Even if a slave is not being beaten, raped, berated, or worked to death in a mine, they are being deprived of many of the most precious things in life by the very nature of slavery.
Aisopos was also a chattel slave, but he lived 600 years earlier, in a very different culture from that of Herculaneum; consider the difference between your own circumstances and the circumstances of domestic servants 600 years ago in Russia.
Herculaneum did not have very much social mobility; it was a society with much more persistent stratification than our own. Half of Herculaneum's citizens (the most privileged 20%) were freedmen, but most of the wealthy citizens were the great-grandchildren of wealthy citizens, and the great majority of people born enslaved died in slavery. Freedmen and often even their children were ineligible for most political offices. Throughout Italy, 80% of decurions had no slave ancestry at all, any number of generations back. (I'm not sure what the number was in Herculaneum.)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436383
To liberals, enslaving someone is itself ill treatment and abuse, because we consider freedom to be the birthright of every human being, and its denial to amount to ill treatment. So we consider the idea of slavery without ill treatment and abuse to be a contradiction in terms. Even if a slave is not being beaten, raped, berated, or worked to death in a mine, they are being deprived of many of the most precious things in life by the very nature of slavery.
I have a simple question: Is it possible that they were servants and not slaves? I'm not very knowledgeable about ancient Roman history but it seems somewhat presumptuous to assume these are slave rooms.
Was there no such thing as a lower economic class of free people that were working as either attendants or servants? This is after all, a villa in a resort area. Its not as if people throughout the annals of history didn't work as attendants alongside slaves.
All of a sudden "An intact servants quarters found in Pompeii's ruins" doesn't sound all that enticing of headline.
Was there no such thing as a lower economic class of free people that were working as either attendants or servants? This is after all, a villa in a resort area. Its not as if people throughout the annals of history didn't work as attendants alongside slaves.
All of a sudden "An intact servants quarters found in Pompeii's ruins" doesn't sound all that enticing of headline.
No, there were no free "servants" in ancient Rome.
Incidentally, even today, "servants" (domestic workers) are often enslaved or work in conditions that are only nominally not slavery. Many are children at an age that is too young to work legally.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140930183517/http://www.antisl...
>> All of a sudden "An intact servants quarters found in Pompeii's ruins" doesn't sound all that enticing of headline.
The actual headline is not clickbait, if that's what you're suggesting, neither is it spiced up to make it more "enticing", or anything like that. Rather, the headline you propose is an anachronism because there were no free "servants" in ancient Rome. The role of "household servants" (domestic workers) was fulfilled by slaves.
Incidentally, even today, "servants" (domestic workers) are often enslaved or work in conditions that are only nominally not slavery. Many are children at an age that is too young to work legally.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140930183517/http://www.antisl...
>> All of a sudden "An intact servants quarters found in Pompeii's ruins" doesn't sound all that enticing of headline.
The actual headline is not clickbait, if that's what you're suggesting, neither is it spiced up to make it more "enticing", or anything like that. Rather, the headline you propose is an anachronism because there were no free "servants" in ancient Rome. The role of "household servants" (domestic workers) was fulfilled by slaves.
> Is it possible that they were servants and not slaves?
Fun Fact: This interpretive problem comes up in translations of the New Testament, where the same word is very frequently used in the context of [servant|slave] of [Christ|God]. See different translations of Romans 1:1.
The Greek word, δοῦλος (doulos) literally means "slave", and is a reference to the contemporaneous Roman practice as can also be seen in other Roman works written in Greek.
But this then creates all sorts of translation issues for English readers:
* if you use the word "slave", then people think of slavery of Africans (people chained, working in fields, being constantly whipped, living in large group quarters). This is way too harsh. The key point of doulos is that he was forced to do something by another will. The emphasis is on the powerless and passive nature of the slave, not on harsh treatment. A slave might be treated well, but if he was, it was only because his Lord decided to treat him that way. But in practice, they were household slaves with better treatment than African slaves.
* if you use the word "servant", then people perhaps think of a butler, which is way too soft. A Butler can decide to leave. He may not have the means to leave, but he has his own will.
So some translations use the term "bondservant" as a compromise, given the fact that this refers to something between our modern conception of slavery and our modern conception of servanthood.
Fun-Fact 2: One of the related words is diakoneo which means "to serve", so one "serves as a slave". From this we get the English word deacon, who is supposed to be a slave/servant of a local church, again with the ambiguity that this is between African slavery and being a butler.
Therefore if you really wanted to remain ambiguous (and mess with your readers) you could call them deacon's quarters.
From the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament entry for doulos[1]:
Hence we have a service which is not a matter of choice for the one who renders it, which he has to perform whether he likes or not, because he is subject as a slave to an alien will, to the will of his owner. → οἰκέτης is almost exactly synonymous, but in δοῦλος the stress is rather on the slave’s dependence on his lord, while οἰκέτης emphasises the position of the slave in relation to the world outside and in human society. This shows us again how strong is the passive element in δοῦλος, and in the whole word group to which it belongs.
- - - source:
[1] Rengstorf, K. H. (1964–). δοῦλος, σύνδουλος, δούλη, δουλέυω, δουλεία, δουλόω, καταδουλόω, δουλαγωγέω, ὀφθαλμοδουλία. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Fun Fact: This interpretive problem comes up in translations of the New Testament, where the same word is very frequently used in the context of [servant|slave] of [Christ|God]. See different translations of Romans 1:1.
The Greek word, δοῦλος (doulos) literally means "slave", and is a reference to the contemporaneous Roman practice as can also be seen in other Roman works written in Greek.
But this then creates all sorts of translation issues for English readers:
* if you use the word "slave", then people think of slavery of Africans (people chained, working in fields, being constantly whipped, living in large group quarters). This is way too harsh. The key point of doulos is that he was forced to do something by another will. The emphasis is on the powerless and passive nature of the slave, not on harsh treatment. A slave might be treated well, but if he was, it was only because his Lord decided to treat him that way. But in practice, they were household slaves with better treatment than African slaves.
* if you use the word "servant", then people perhaps think of a butler, which is way too soft. A Butler can decide to leave. He may not have the means to leave, but he has his own will.
So some translations use the term "bondservant" as a compromise, given the fact that this refers to something between our modern conception of slavery and our modern conception of servanthood.
Fun-Fact 2: One of the related words is diakoneo which means "to serve", so one "serves as a slave". From this we get the English word deacon, who is supposed to be a slave/servant of a local church, again with the ambiguity that this is between African slavery and being a butler.
Therefore if you really wanted to remain ambiguous (and mess with your readers) you could call them deacon's quarters.
From the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament entry for doulos[1]:
Hence we have a service which is not a matter of choice for the one who renders it, which he has to perform whether he likes or not, because he is subject as a slave to an alien will, to the will of his owner. → οἰκέτης is almost exactly synonymous, but in δοῦλος the stress is rather on the slave’s dependence on his lord, while οἰκέτης emphasises the position of the slave in relation to the world outside and in human society. This shows us again how strong is the passive element in δοῦλος, and in the whole word group to which it belongs.
- - - source:
[1] Rengstorf, K. H. (1964–). δοῦλος, σύνδουλος, δούλη, δουλέυω, δουλεία, δουλόω, καταδουλόω, δουλαγωγέω, ὀφθαλμοδουλία. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Isn't it a bit of a penmanship bias that the slaves you hear about in history have more dignity? All writing is propaganda to a degree, while we see here evidence of multiple people locked in a tiny room
You see evidence for the sleep quarters and assume they’re locked in, what evidence do you have to claim that? Where is the evidence of slave abuse you feel is true?
From archeology of Herculaneum they looked at a household with a slave and noted that one of the remains was fat, well fed man and had many signs of eating a meat rich diet, and a girl found was less nourished and had signs of malnutrition. They assumed from his healthy bones he was the master and the teen girl was the slave. The well fed man was the cook, a slave and the young girl was vegetarian by choice and the daughter of the master of the household.
Your assumptions of it being propaganda are not factually accurate.
From archeology of Herculaneum they looked at a household with a slave and noted that one of the remains was fat, well fed man and had many signs of eating a meat rich diet, and a girl found was less nourished and had signs of malnutrition. They assumed from his healthy bones he was the master and the teen girl was the slave. The well fed man was the cook, a slave and the young girl was vegetarian by choice and the daughter of the master of the household.
Your assumptions of it being propaganda are not factually accurate.
>> Isn't it a bit of a penmanship bias that the slaves you hear about in history have more dignity? All writing is propaganda to a degree, while we see here evidence of multiple people locked in a tiny room
> You see evidence for the sleep quarters and assume they’re locked in, what evidence do you have to claim that? Where is the evidence of slave abuse you feel is true?
People can be locked in by things other than a physical lock one the door. Didn't some slaves in classical times receive tattoos like "I belong to so and so, return me to him for a reward."?
Edit: here's a citation: https://archive.archaeology.org/9903/abstracts/tattoo.html
> A legal inscription from Ephesus indicates that during the early Roman Empire all slaves exported to Asia were tattooed with the words "tax paid." "Stop me, I'm a runaway" was another standard motto etched on the brows of Roman slaves. New research indicates that Roman authorities punished early Christians with forehead tattoos that condemned them to the mines. In A.D. 330, the first Christian emperor, Constantine, banned the practice of tattooing the faces of convicts, gladiators, and soldiers. Because the human face reflected "the image of divine beauty," he said, "it should not be defiled."
> You see evidence for the sleep quarters and assume they’re locked in, what evidence do you have to claim that? Where is the evidence of slave abuse you feel is true?
People can be locked in by things other than a physical lock one the door. Didn't some slaves in classical times receive tattoos like "I belong to so and so, return me to him for a reward."?
Edit: here's a citation: https://archive.archaeology.org/9903/abstracts/tattoo.html
> A legal inscription from Ephesus indicates that during the early Roman Empire all slaves exported to Asia were tattooed with the words "tax paid." "Stop me, I'm a runaway" was another standard motto etched on the brows of Roman slaves. New research indicates that Roman authorities punished early Christians with forehead tattoos that condemned them to the mines. In A.D. 330, the first Christian emperor, Constantine, banned the practice of tattooing the faces of convicts, gladiators, and soldiers. Because the human face reflected "the image of divine beauty," he said, "it should not be defiled."
That’s reaching. You’re by that logic locked on the internet, the supermarket and tattood by your credit score.
> That’s reaching.
No it's not.
> You’re by that logic locked on the internet, the supermarket and tattood by your credit score.
You in fact are, but those things aren't as severe as a tattoo on your face declaring your widely-recognized status as someone's property.
The point is that social status and the conspiracy of the rest of society to enforce that can be just as confining if not more so than a literal lock. A prisoner that escapes from prison isn't free, so long as he's within reach of the society that put him there, and a prisoner who understands that may not bother to escape at all.
No it's not.
> You’re by that logic locked on the internet, the supermarket and tattood by your credit score.
You in fact are, but those things aren't as severe as a tattoo on your face declaring your widely-recognized status as someone's property.
The point is that social status and the conspiracy of the rest of society to enforce that can be just as confining if not more so than a literal lock. A prisoner that escapes from prison isn't free, so long as he's within reach of the society that put him there, and a prisoner who understands that may not bother to escape at all.
Yes I agree, mentally chaining someone is very harmful.
> You in fact are, but those things aren't as severe as a tattoo on your face declaring your widely-recognized status as someone's property.
How often did this happen and what evidence is there to support it’s widespread usage?
> You in fact are, but those things aren't as severe as a tattoo on your face declaring your widely-recognized status as someone's property.
How often did this happen and what evidence is there to support it’s widespread usage?
> How often did this happen and what evidence is there to support it’s widespread usage?
I suggest you do some research and find out to your satisfaction. For a comment thread, I've already provided a reasonable amount.
I suggest you do some research and find out to your satisfaction. For a comment thread, I've already provided a reasonable amount.
You're right, evidence of locked is not there. And I'm not fully convinced they're slaves, either, as many conditions bind people to work. There's definitely a lot of ambiguity from these time periods, but whitewashing slavery in written text is a well-known phenomenon
> Many slaves were captured and famous intellectuals (Aesop is a famous example) or educated and used as tutors, they were not as modernists assume to be universally ill treated and abused.
And far, far more slaves worked the fields or lived short nasty lives in mines, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_of_Laurion (near Athens):
> Shafts were driven down into the ground and galleries opened where slaves, chained, naked, and branded, worked the seams illuminated only by guttering oil lamps. An unrecorded number were children. It was a miserable, dangerous, and brief life.
> ...The Romans provided cheap slave labor and new technologies gave the Greeks new means of extracting silver in more efficient ways.
And far, far more slaves worked the fields or lived short nasty lives in mines, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mines_of_Laurion (near Athens):
> Shafts were driven down into the ground and galleries opened where slaves, chained, naked, and branded, worked the seams illuminated only by guttering oil lamps. An unrecorded number were children. It was a miserable, dangerous, and brief life.
> ...The Romans provided cheap slave labor and new technologies gave the Greeks new means of extracting silver in more efficient ways.
How is that different from slaves like William Ellison in the USA? Pre-Civil War he became one of the wealthiest property owners in South Carolina. Sounds like decent social mobility to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison
How often did this happen vs Roman times? Before the dreadful US took over the South, slaves were much better treated and had way more upwards mobility, like in Florida when the Spanish and French were the colonizers. Places like New Orleans was much better for African descendants and many fled when they found out they’d be ruled by America.
I don’t cite Thomas Jefferson and his treatment of his slaves as the normative, in Roman times it was built into the system for slaves to buy their freedom and also have upwards mobility. That is not institutionalized for slavery in the US.
I don’t cite Thomas Jefferson and his treatment of his slaves as the normative, in Roman times it was built into the system for slaves to buy their freedom and also have upwards mobility. That is not institutionalized for slavery in the US.
The philosophers Plato and Epictetus were, for a time, slaves.
I've never read anywhere that Plato was a slave. He came from an aristocratic family and was one of the noble youths the Athenians were so concerned about the historical Socrates corrupting with his epistemic skepticism. He had family that were apart of the anti-democratic coup d'etat.
I was also unaware of Plato's possible slavery, and found this [0], but I do not have the background knowledge judge the veracity of the information:
> One source of the story of Plato being sold into slavery is Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laërtius. An English translation is available online [1] on Project Perseus. You can find the full story in Book 3 that discusses the life of Plato.
[0] https://history.stackexchange.com/a/37499
[1] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...
> One source of the story of Plato being sold into slavery is Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laërtius. An English translation is available online [1] on Project Perseus. You can find the full story in Book 3 that discusses the life of Plato.
[0] https://history.stackexchange.com/a/37499
[1] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...
These sources just highlight that he was, at best, under threat of being a slave though, not that he was actually sold and performed as a slave. He's ransomed for at the last minute by someone recognizing him at the market.
If Plato had actually been a slave, his lifelong commitment to anti-democratic political organization would've been a little different, though maybe not, considering even this experience didn't change his philosophy, to the point that's likely not worth mentioning as a significant experience, unlike Epictectus who was born into slavery.
If Plato had actually been a slave, his lifelong commitment to anti-democratic political organization would've been a little different, though maybe not, considering even this experience didn't change his philosophy, to the point that's likely not worth mentioning as a significant experience, unlike Epictectus who was born into slavery.
Sorry being up for sale in a slave market isn’t enough—I think it is fascinating and important.
Framing that conflict and history as about "epistemic skepticism" is modern simplification. It makes modern point and avoids any hint of actual conflicts in that city.
It completely ignores very real and deadly politics of that city prior and reasons why Socrates was hated.
It completely ignores very real and deadly politics of that city prior and reasons why Socrates was hated.
Many aristocrats could be captured as war prizes, enslaved, and used to tutor the children of the winning army. They weren’t all forced to pick cotton or worked to death.
chmod775(3)
Looks like my SF market street studio. We sure have come a long way...
First thing I thought: They look like modern student dorm rooms / living arrangements, but without windows, like that new Munger hall that is being built.
> The room was lit by a small upper window
On the other hand, extremely limited artificial light, so this would have been penumbral the entire day, with the possible exception of the moments where the sun really faced the window.
According to the plan at the bottom, the window would have been east-north-east and thus really only useful early morning, if at all.
According to the plan at the bottom, the window would have been east-north-east and thus really only useful early morning, if at all.
I just spent 5 years locked in a room with no window and 24x7 artificial lighting, so they have it way better than some modern folks.
Let's not be ridiculous. This room has no artificial light and almost no natural light, minimal ventilation, no water, no electricity, which is the norm nowadays even for cheap apartments.
In Toronto you could get $1800 a month for that or sell it for $600k.
...but not prisons
Were you in prison or did you lose a key?
I lost my ke... wait, no it was a cell in a county jail awaiting trial.
It's way bigger and nicer than the jail cell I just spent several years in.
What did you do?
What did you do and what did they get you for can be wildly different questions and realities.
Unsolicited personal advice: The latter opens more doors of meaningful conversation, the former can slam those doors before you can walk through them.
Unsolicited personal advice: The latter opens more doors of meaningful conversation, the former can slam those doors before you can walk through them.
Amen, brother. This is very true. What you did or didn't do, and what they arrested you for, or prosecuted you for, are often wildly different things.
oh, you were innocent?
Two criminal cases. One was dismissed after 5 years in a windowless room. On the way out of the jail I was arrested with a fake warrant made by the prosecutor and spent another 3 years in a room with a window. I am out now.
You should write a book
What'd they get you for?
Are you being sarcastic?
Wow - apparently asking questions is a bad thing on HN?
The fact that a "slave's" room from 1,942 years ag, resembles the room of a presumably well-educated, skilled and/or technically-focused contributor (as I perceive nearly all contributors to HN), seems rather odd.
So, my question still stands... Is the comment meant to be sarcastic?
Can the the comment be interpreted as:
1. "They didn't have it as bad as we might think"? 2. "My life is little different from a slave of ~2000 years ago"? 3. "I feel a connection with the people/person who lived in that room"? 4. Something else?
The fact that a "slave's" room from 1,942 years ag, resembles the room of a presumably well-educated, skilled and/or technically-focused contributor (as I perceive nearly all contributors to HN), seems rather odd.
So, my question still stands... Is the comment meant to be sarcastic?
Can the the comment be interpreted as:
1. "They didn't have it as bad as we might think"? 2. "My life is little different from a slave of ~2000 years ago"? 3. "I feel a connection with the people/person who lived in that room"? 4. Something else?
Per HN guidelines: Assume good faith
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you can't, just don't reply at all.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you can't, just don't reply at all.
homework assignment: watch two Monty Python movies and three flying circus episodes.
Yes, I've seen them all... and "Oh, look, there's some lovely muck over here."
But, I don't see the connection?
But, I don't see the connection?
Your parent comment assumes the OP comment was made in jest.
[deleted](1)
site is down, no one saved it on wayback machine
This is the official site of Pompeii archeological park : http://pompeiisites.org/en/
If you’re near Naples, I recommend visiting the site! You can get a tour guide, but just walking around the massive grounds and exploring is fun by itself.
How do they know slaves lived there? Is it just an assumption? The article does not mention any clues.
Actually, there were many clues listed, but they didn't directly connect them to "slaves" as such. The rough timber used in the bedding, the amphorae under the bed, a chamber pot, and lots of evidence suggesting the room was used for storage in addition to sleeping. These all point towards someone of much lower class (slaves of some kind) than the owner of the villa.
I assume that in 79 A.D. the things you list, like beds no matter the timber roughness, were a luxury. Like, imagine living in a stone house? In a room with decorated walls (looks like carved out patterns on them).
Surely the scrappiest room in the villa was for servants, some distant poor relative or rented out to students or what not. I just don't buy that the inhabitants for sure were slaves.
Surely the scrappiest room in the villa was for servants, some distant poor relative or rented out to students or what not. I just don't buy that the inhabitants for sure were slaves.
Slaves, plebians, and patricians were very distinct social classes. There really wasn't such a thing as a free servant, with the occasional exception of some freedmen. Roman villas had two separate living areas, one for the owner's family and one for the slaves. We know enough about Roman architecture to identify this as the pars rustica, the slaves' quarters.
Ok fair enough.
I assume that they have compared these accommodations to others already found and see a noticeable difference in the quality of the furnishings and other components.
Slaves made up 30-40% of the population so it not unreasonable to conclude that the shabby accommodations would be intended for slaves.
Slaves made up 30-40% of the population so it not unreasonable to conclude that the shabby accommodations would be intended for slaves.
Sure, it is likely that slaves lived there. But I would not state it as a fact.
Pompeii was a place where rich people lived, not an average town.
I guess the outcome was deserved
Bed luxury? Wood was cheap and with basic tools it takes a few hours to make.
Ye OK beds in general were no luxury. But:
"The webbed bases of the beds were made of ropes"
Does not sound like cheap 79 AD bed to me.
"The webbed bases of the beds were made of ropes"
Does not sound like cheap 79 AD bed to me.
That's how all beds were made prior to the advent of box springs (or modern mattresses, which don't require a separate box spring). Very old beds still have the hooks necessary to hold up the ropes that supported the mattress.
I've seen medieval beds in the UK that were a wooden 'tray' (on legs, or built into a wall) and the guides said a hessian bag was filled with straw (dried stems of wheat/corn/barley; straw and hay are often used interchangeably though, so it might have been dried wild grasses) for bedding.
I assumed poor people slept on the floor with whatever coverings they could muster. Suspended beds seem very decadent.
The stretched fabric, like canvas, over a rectangular frame design seems pretty common and would have surely been a more natural early bed. Similarly hammocks - which I thought were common on ships (at least in the later middle ages).
Guess I've discovered I'd like to read a history of beds!
I assumed poor people slept on the floor with whatever coverings they could muster. Suspended beds seem very decadent.
The stretched fabric, like canvas, over a rectangular frame design seems pretty common and would have surely been a more natural early bed. Similarly hammocks - which I thought were common on ships (at least in the later middle ages).
Guess I've discovered I'd like to read a history of beds!
Not wooden slats with straw mattress?
Why is there the assumption that people of lower classes were slaves?
Nominally free lower classes would have lived in an entirely different part of town. We know quite a lot about the society in question from written sources, this is far from blank slate archaeology (where everything we find seems to default to "used for some ceremonial purpose")
Matter of definition, I suppose.
The article mentions the large amount of storage containers in the room, something (presumably) not present in other rooms in the building. There's also pieces of metal and fabric consistent with being part of a chariot. That evidence, combined with the size of the room and presence of three beds, seems to be consistent with the idea that this is a slave's room.
[deleted]
"Sadly, in this room too, a part of the archaeological heritage has been lost due to tunnels dug by grave robbers who, throughout the villa, have caused a total amount of damage estimated at almost 2 million euros."
I'm curious what that means. How do you "value" something like Pompeii? Are they just saying that they stole gold and silver worth that much, or that the damage to the ruins costs that much more to repair/recover?
I'm curious what that means. How do you "value" something like Pompeii? Are they just saying that they stole gold and silver worth that much, or that the damage to the ruins costs that much more to repair/recover?
Might also be the value of the stolen property on the black market. There are unfortunately enough unscrupulous antiquities collectors, that one can estimate “market value” of Roman amphorae, jewelry, and other items.
[deleted]
I'm imagining it's parallel to cops announcing the value of drug seizures at (variously inaccurate) estimates of "street value", but for black market antiques.
It could also be how much it costs to repair the damage they did.
'repair' is a bit of a fuzzy concept when you're talking about an archaeological site, though, still more when we're talking about a site that was caught up in a volcanic eruption.
You can literally never repair it to the state it was in before the robbery, in the sense of restoring it to a pristine condition as it was left by the eruption.
You can literally never repair it to the state it was in before the robbery, in the sense of restoring it to a pristine condition as it was left by the eruption.
You can also literally never step in the same river twice, but that's a bit more metaphysical than literal. Photos by the robbers before they vandalized the site would be invaluable. Nowhere near as good as if they'd left it intact, but better than nothing.
The whole question of this thread is how they are putting a ‘value’ on the damage done.
If photos (which presumably do not exist) of the site in pristine pre-robbery condition existed would be, as you say, ‘invaluable’, then how can we put a value on the damage done?
If photos (which presumably do not exist) of the site in pristine pre-robbery condition existed would be, as you say, ‘invaluable’, then how can we put a value on the damage done?
Semantically I find it a bit funny we call the thieves "grave robbers". If they're stealing from someone's grave, isn't the current excavation robbing someone's grave too?
But of course, the current excavation isn't theft because they have approval from the local government who owns this site. The thieves aren't really "grave robbers" because they're not robbing from someone's grave, they're robbing from a publicly owned resource. So they're really "Archaeological Park of Pompeii robbers".
But of course, the current excavation isn't theft because they have approval from the local government who owns this site. The thieves aren't really "grave robbers" because they're not robbing from someone's grave, they're robbing from a publicly owned resource. So they're really "Archaeological Park of Pompeii robbers".
Personal profit angle versus preservation. Although maybe the latter isn’t perfect but the intentions are there.
It’s the same reason an African general is a “warlord”. You can reframe anything in a few choice words.
Pompeii is a mass grave due to the eruption that killed and buried most of the inhabitants.
That's not the point
Why not? It’s a grave and they robbed it.
Suggesting archeologists on the other hand are robbing the grave implies they both don’t own it and the archeologists are taking ownership of whatever is removed. The first might apply but the second doesn’t.
Suggesting archeologists on the other hand are robbing the grave implies they both don’t own it and the archeologists are taking ownership of whatever is removed. The first might apply but the second doesn’t.
The semantic point I was trying to make is that calling anyone a "grave robber" can be reasonably interpreted to imply the victim of the theft is those whose grave it is. Namely the dead. They're dead, so they certainly aren't consenting to the archeologists' activity either.
But I of course agree the archeologists aren't robbers. But that's because we as a society don't see the artefacts as belonging to the dead, as the phrase "grave robbers" can imply, rather they belong to the current living people and our institutions. So the original thieves aren't robbing from the dead, they're robbing from the people.
That said, there's something extra bad about robbing from the cultural heritage of the people AND desecrating the graves of the dead in the process. I would presume the archeologists would treat the area and the remains of people which much more respect. I really don't think the term "grave robber" is wrong, I just found it semantically interesting. Maybe another term could be "grave desecrating antiquity thieves"
But I of course agree the archeologists aren't robbers. But that's because we as a society don't see the artefacts as belonging to the dead, as the phrase "grave robbers" can imply, rather they belong to the current living people and our institutions. So the original thieves aren't robbing from the dead, they're robbing from the people.
That said, there's something extra bad about robbing from the cultural heritage of the people AND desecrating the graves of the dead in the process. I would presume the archeologists would treat the area and the remains of people which much more respect. I really don't think the term "grave robber" is wrong, I just found it semantically interesting. Maybe another term could be "grave desecrating antiquity thieves"
[deleted]
It could be that they have contemporary documentation on the values of various objects and materials. What's the inflation-adjusted conversion rate between 2021 USD and the 79 Roman denarius?
I’d guess it’s akin to insuring a museum. This is the best reference I’ve found on a quick search: https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/heritage/heritage-02-00029...
>> grave robbers
Is this place a grave? It looks more like a natural disaster scene to me. Not every place with a body is a grave. Or maybe it is? How long does a body have to be left undiscovered before we declare the area a grave?
Is this place a grave? It looks more like a natural disaster scene to me. Not every place with a body is a grave. Or maybe it is? How long does a body have to be left undiscovered before we declare the area a grave?
[deleted]
Organic material didnt survive. What missing would be mattresses, blankets, cushions, rugs, clothing. These items would be be made of basic coarse material for slaves. Upper classes would have more refined and comfortable items.
the beds look almost identical to a 'charpoy' you would see anywhere in the modern day Punjab in south asia
"The webbed bases of the beds were made of ropes, the imprints of which are partially discernible in the cinerite,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charpai
"The webbed bases of the beds were made of ropes, the imprints of which are partially discernible in the cinerite,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charpai
I have seen smaller living spaces in San Francisco.
[deleted]
Do the descendants of these slaves get reparations?
So even slaves at Pompeii had a window to get light from, we see.